Biz Beat Blog

Your thoughts on climate change please: Is threat exaggerated?

A Secret Service agent keeps an eye out at a farm in Los Banos, Calif., where President Barack Obama was speaking to reporters about the state's ongoing drought, Feb. 14, 2014. Obama directly linked the drought to global climate change, though some experts say that it is more likely the result of naturally varying climate cycles. (Wally Skalij/Pool via The New York Times)

WASHINGTON — I’ve spent the last week thinking, reading and talking about climate change, and now I’d like to get your thoughts on some of the more interesting points of skepticism about it.

It’s been on my mind because the Supreme Court will hear arguments TuesdayMonday on a major environmental case that could result in greatly weakening, or strengthening, the EPA’s hand when it comes to reducing America’s contribution to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Though many environmentalists are unhappy with President Obama’s record, it’s no secret that he’s been far more aggressive in pushing the EPA to tackle greenhouse gas emissions than industry leaders in Texas, and elsewhere, are comfortable with.

Texas Association of Business’s Stephen Minick put it this way: The threat to people from climate change has been exaggerated and, in any case, is uncertain. The harm to people and businesses right now, through costly regulations from Washington, is both certain and significant, he argues.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the greenhouse gases were “pollutants” under the CLean Air Act, and said the agency had responsibility to evaluate the danger they pose. In its opinion, the majority cited the overwhelming consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming because of greater levels of carbon dioxide.

Still, Minick said that seeming certainty masks a lot that science and policy makers don’t know about climate change and the role mankind is playing in it. The uncertainty calls for a slower, more modest approach by the government until the science paints a clearer picture about the threat and how government intervention will help. Minick is vice president of government relations for TAB.

I wanted to break down those arguments a bit and see what insights readers can share. I am not looking to start a fight, and I am not suggesting I agree with Minick’s skepticism about climate change. I do think he raises interesting points, and I’d like you to help me understand how others view those thoughts.

* We can’t tell how bad global warming, or climate change in general, will be because we aren’t waiting for observable data. Instead, scientists are relying on models that predict what the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions will be on the temperatures, and by extension what those temperatures will mean for the weather, sea levels, and the like. “The science isn’t there yet because nobody is patient enough to wait for the science,” he said.

A pair of climate scientists from the University of Alabama made similar points in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday. They argue that skepticism is a scientific core value. By insisting on a kind of lock-step mentality, they argue inconsistencies and even errors are overlooked. “While none of these inconsistencies refutes the fundamental concern about greenhouse-gas-enhanced climate change, it is disturbing that “consensus science” will not acknowledge that such discrepancies are major problems,” they write.

* Given that greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere by many natural sources — and at much greater volumes than human activity — we aren’t able to adequately assess the degree to which human activity contributes to this problem. Minick argues that even if the US were to cut its emissions by 50 percent, that is such a small fraction of the world’s overall production of greenhouse gas, the bad climate effects — say, rising sea levels — will happen anyway. The EPA refutes this. “Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth’s carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.” For proof, “>it cites this 2007 study by the National Academies.

What do you think?

* If everyone were to agree that man was hastening climate change, and that the results will be damaging, it is still foolish to impose restrictions on business until we can measure whether they will effective.

Let’s say your shed is on fire in the backyard. You know that if it is not put out, it will spread to the deck and to your house and beyond. Your neighbor has a big can of something called Fire Solution. Your neighbor tells you it will help put the fire out, but it’s going to cost you most of your children’s college fund.

Do you buy the Solution? What if you don’t know if it will help? Now let’s say it will take two weeks for the fire to spread to the deck.

That’s the essence of big business’s concerns about climate change. TAB says fighting climate change by forcing America to reduce its greenhouse emissions without knowing first what impact those reductions will have, especially given other nation’s contributions to the fire, is foolish.

What do you think?

Finally, a question of fairness. Minick says even if we know that heavy investment now will help reduce the threat or damage from climate change in many many years to come. “Is it fair to pay for those changes in the future by taking money out of the pockets of people right now, many of whom can’t afford it?”

It’s not just that big businesses want to preserve their profits, he said. Heavy regulation will cost consumers, too, and if consumers have less money they will buy less from businesses, he said.

What do you think?

Editor Picks

Comments

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.

Ad:TopLeft

Ad: Position1

Archives Title

Archives

ArchivesAbout this blog

About This Blog

Daily breaking news alerts from the Business staff of The Dallas Morning News.